November 3, 2017
Flatbush Chiropractic, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51494(U))
https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/flatbush-chiropractic-p-c-v-state-farm-mut-auto-ins-co-2017-ny-slip-op51494u/
- Decided
- November 3, 2017
- Citation
- 2017 NY Slip Op 51494(U) · 57 Misc 3d 148(A)
- Posture
- Summary judgment
- Outcome
- Insurer prevailed
- Issues
- EUO no-show
- Legal questions
- No-show defense: insurer's proof (see the maps)
Posture, outcome, issues and treatment by other decisions are Beynenson Law’s classification. Treatment labels are assigned by a language model reading the citing decision; negative and appeal-history labels are checked by a second reader.
Summary
Editorial summary by Beynenson Law, not part of the court’s decision.
Reported in New York Official Reports at Flatbush Chiropractic, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51494(U))
| Flatbush Chiropractic, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 51494(U) [57 Misc 3d 148(A)] |
| Decided on November 3, 2017 |
| Appellate Term, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Decided on November 3, 2017
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th
JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : MICHAEL L. PESCE, P.J., THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, MARTIN M.
SOLOMON, JJ
2014-2172 K C
against
State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., Respondent.
The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell, Esq.), for appellant. Rivkin Radler, LLP (Stuart M. Bodoff, Esq.), for respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Carol Ruth Feinman, J.), entered July 10, 2014. The order granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.
In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs).
Contrary to plaintiff’s sole contention, the affirmation submitted by defendant’s attorney, who was present in his office to conduct plaintiff’s EUO on the scheduled dates, was sufficient to establish that plaintiff had failed to appear for the EUOs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]).
Accordingly, the order is affirmed.
PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: November 03, 2017
Legal questions
A question of no-fault law this decision rules on, from our Legal Questions pages. Bars count the decisions on the question by year and court, coloured by category; circles are this decision and the decisions on the question it cites or that cite it. Point at a bar or circle for details. The categories and summaries are Beynenson Law’s classification, made by a language model and checked by a second reading.
Did the insurer prove its IME/EUO no-show defense: mailed, compliant scheduling requests and the claimant’s nonappearance?
This decision: Insurer proved mailed, compliant requests and the nonappearance; claimant's answers rejected
Held the insurer's attorney's affirmation sufficient to prove the EUO nonappearances because the attorney was present in his office to conduct the EUOs on the scheduled dates.
Of the 858 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 527 (this one included) are in the same category.
Cited in this decision
A label shows how this decision treated the case it cites.
- Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 09604) FollowedAn insurer may deny benefits retroactively to the date of loss for failure to attend reasonably required IMEs under 11 NYCRR 65-1.1.
Similar decisions
- Restoration Chiropractic, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51489(U))The insurer's summary judgment motion dismissing the provider's claims for failure to appear for EUOs was granted.
- A.O.T. Chiropractic, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 50288(U))The insurer's attorney established through personal knowledge that the provider failed to appear for both duly scheduled EUOs. The provider's sole appellate argument challenged proof of nonappearance.
- Bronx Chiropractic Care, P.C. v State Farm Ins. (2019 NY Slip Op 50700(U))An insurer need not state objective reasons for requesting EUOs to establish entitlement to summary judgment based on nonappearance.
- Flatlands Med., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2013 NY Slip Op 50763(U))The provider's objections to the insurer's EUO requests were not heard because it had not responded to the requests.
- Sanford Chiropractic, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2022 NY Slip Op 50576(U))The insurer's attorney's affirmation established the provider's EUO nonappearances despite a challenge to proof of presence at the start times.